Living in Thailand, most TV shows aren't available here until WAY after the Western airdate, if ever.

I live in a pretty small town. Western movies don't play here, and if I travel an hour or so to a town where they do, they do they are dubbed in Thai with no English subtitles. DVDs are readily available, but they are usually pirated cam copies burned to disc, and again dubbed in Thai.

Games? Not available in stores in my town. Bangkok, sure -- but again they are almost always pirated copies burned to disk. Console games are the same way and any shops selling the game will also chip the console to play pirated disks. I could, and admittedly probably SHOULD use steam for PC games.

Other software? Basically same story as games. If you go to a computer store here, advertising usually says that they are sold with Linux OS or bare drives. But, the shop will automatically put on a pirated Windows plus loads of software (office, Photoshop if you ask for it, etc.) upon purchasing the hardware. They are usually fairly inept at it, frequently have viruses or fail to actually activate the OS, etc. so I tell them to leave the drives bare and do all that stuff myself. But for 99% of people who buy a PC here, they will automatically get a pirated OS and software along with it.

Basically, my default mode of getting ANY media is piracy. Price (free versus not) is a part of that. Incomes are low here, but cost of living is comparatively even lower. Still, if media was fully available here but equal to the price in, say, the US the vast majority of people here don't have enough disposable income to afford much if any of it. A bigger issue for me personally is convenience. Piracy (torrents, etc.) as a distribution system is infinitely more convenient, easy, and "customer"-friendly than any more legitimate service. I get what I want very quickly, usually in multiple options for filesize vs quality on up to as-good-as-broadcast/blu-ray 1080p, with most everything available from a single source (isoHunt, kickass, PirateBay, take your pick). In terms of user experience, legitimate distribution can't even begin to compete with that -- and that is BEFORE considering price.

Instead, they exacerbate the difference by treating paying customers with open contempt. Pay for TV service? Enjoy 10 minutes of ads for every 12 minutes of show. Buy a DVD? Sit through un-skippable ads, dire piracy warnings, etc. before the show actually starts. Move or simply take the disk on vacation to another country and you will likely be screwed by region locking. Buy software? Get some DRM that slows things down or restricts fully NORMAL use of the software, nags you to register, etc. On the other hand, if you pirate stuff all of that goes away. No ads. Watch/use the media wherever you want, whenever you want, on whatever device you want. Software DRM circumvented easily, usually hours after the first release if not *before*.

I honestly see it as a problem that I am not supporting the creators of the media that I enjoy. But, Pandora's box has been opened on this one. Generation X and Y learned to scoff at the idea of paying for music due to Napster. iTunes has been extremely lucky to turn that around even slightly, making lots of mistakes along the way (DRM and device-locking, etc.). Gen Y and beyond are going to have the same attitude towards piracy with regards to ALL MEDIA that we learned to have towards music. I don't think there is any getting around that.

For content creators, I think that funding via Label / Publisher / Network is going to die out. And soon. The good news is that something akin to an evolution of patronage of arts and creators can work even better than it did in the past. The Motzarts and Beethovens of the future don't need 1 rich duke or king to commision a work, they need 10,000 average Joes on kickstarter or the like. I see things trending more and more in that direction, and all the time. I think it is an exciting time -- unless you're an exec in one of the old dinosaur publishers/networks.

Quite a bit actually, since I'm a systems engineer. I also gamed competitively on PC's, before all that was national and international. I modded games, built 3D models for games, built all my computers custom with the newest video cards, payed through the nose for the fastest broadband...

and then life happened

I don't argue that the quality of graphics on PC games is better and Steam is an excellent service. I just find that with family and other responsibilities I need to make the most of my time now. Sitting in front of my computer screen for hours not engaging with my family is hardly an option. But I can play tons of games with my family on console. For me, PC's are a solo activity with a huge ongoing investment in time and money. Consoles, I pay once and enjoy from the comfort of my couch, on a giant screen, while engaging with my family.

My real point is that PC's are a great option if your life allows it. Consoles fill a different niche. Just like XBox and PS are aimed at different interests. No one's going to win the argument.

To be fair, @TheFreak's argument is not completely invalid.

The question is, are PC's better, I think you and I would agree that yes they are. TheFreak's argument did nothing to disprove that, he merely argued that RL gets in the way as you just demonstrated.

Well no shit. I have a huge backlog of games thanks to steam sales and I'm seriously trying to figure out how to give more money to Star Citizen without breaking the bank. And yes, I have a life outside of gaming and a job that demands a lot of my time.

Still doesn't mean PC games aren't better. In the console world, I have to save every flipping console ever made and hope that they never break down. Oh yeah, and I have to re-buy games I've bought before when they re-release them on the new platform. (you've seen AVGN's basement right? ManCave aspect aside, that place is completely unrealistic to everyone else

PC's not so much, as long as the software exists and I have storage, I can play it. I'm not locked into hardware or some online service. I'm not at someone's mercy if the corporation shuts things down.

no shit they require a modest bit more effort and money. again, that doesn't disprove that PCs are better. Many things that are better require a bit more effort.

Let's see, I can sit alone in front of my computer and play a PC game, assuming I've upgraded my system recently enough...ooooor...I can sit in my living room with a 50" display and enjoy a game with my entire family.

PC is great if you're young and have no responsibilities. Wait till you have a family and priorities that preempt spending a ton of money on PC hardware. Consoles will make a lot more sense to you then.

Its not really consoles fault that PCs are harder to develop for and suffer much higher piracy rates. It frustrates me when a console port is lazy on the fairly basic shit, like graphics, control and hud options but I don't really hate on developers for focusing their huge investment on the platform that'll give them the most return either. Some might see games like Skyrim as compromising their PC heritage for the console market, but I think you could also argue that the console market allowed a PC game to be mucher larger in scope than it would have been otherwise.

Personally I think PC gaming is in a pretty good place. My hope is that it won't be long before you can easily hook up the TV in your living room to the PC sitting in your study or bedroom or w/e and the PC can really compete against consoles on their territory. Valve has clearly set their sights on it, I think Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo should be worried.

I'm no console snob. I hate all consoles equally. They ruined PC gaming, afaic, even though the PC is a superior gaming platform. I've been cursing consoles since the Halo fiasco, when the game was made an XBox exclusive, destroying what was shaping up to be an incredible PC game. The console version and very-delayed PC port were just crap. Since then, most AAA PC game developers have been tripping over each other for a piece of the huge console market. Cross-platform development has taken it's toll on the PC versions of games, as games are designed for the lowest common denominator (consoles). The controls suck, the interfaces suck, the endless QTEs suck, the hand-holding sucks, the cover systems suck, the hide-and-wait healing sucks, the graphics suck, and most important of all, the gameplay sucks.

Thank FSM for indie developers who make PC games.

The current XBox allows you to borrow, rent games. You can buy and sell used games without any issues as well. The upcoming XBox One however allows a title to be resold only once through a very specific process that they haven't revealed yet. You can't borrow a friends copy of a game, and I'd presume you can't take your game to their house to play there unless the game is tied to your account not just your XBox One... Either way...

As Jinx noted, this was likely done to appease the publishers. They've been wanting to get rid of the used game industry for some time (an industry I don't get anyhow, you'll give me less than half the used price of a game, then sell it for $5 less than a new copy... why buy used if it is only $5 less?).

The question becomes, as noted before, if the publishers make it worth Microsoft's time and losses due to that policy then it will work out, but if they support Sony just as well, or even after a short delay, then Microsoft gambled wrong. They are going to lose sales over the policy. That, the fact the system needs to connect every 24 hours or it will lock down even single player use until it connects again...

To play games online with XBox Live you need a paid Gold account. You can play games on the PS3 without a PS Plus account, but there are rumors that the PS4 will require a paid PS Plus account to play multiplayer. That will just be leveling the playing field, and if you still don't need a paid account to access Netflix (you need a paid Gold account on XBox to get Netflix or Amazon videos... and I think to access your YouTube account fully) on the PS4 then they'll still have an edge on the multimedia front.

Another of Sony's big upsets was pricing the PS4 $100 under the XBox One price... now I'm going to hazard a guess they had a couple prices ready to roll based on the XBox's price and decided to undercut, it could have been the planed price from the start, but I'd guess they wanted to scare Microsoft. I'm also guessing Microsoft will announce "new cost saving measures" right before the holidays and adjust theirs down, they are already behind the 8 ball with the used and borrowing game limits, I can't see them letting Sony getting a huge boost from price as well... if they reverse course on borrowing/used games they might be able to keep the price up "we've heard the complaints from our users and have decided not to implement that feature at this time" sort of thing, but I'm guessing they are too far into that to reverse that and will just price match.

EDIT: I should note that I'm mostly a PC Gamer, followed by XBox games then PS3... well iOS games are probably after PC Games but before console games... I like XBox better as a gaming platform, but my PS3 has better networking for Netflix and Blu-ray support (XBox One gains Blu-ray support) so it is my multimedia machine of choice. I don't think I'll upgrade either system at this time though...

I want a game console, not a multimedia internet device. I already have that, it s called a PC.

And thus the pendulum swings back. The Xbox made me love consoles again...now I'm back to playing mostly PC games again.

People want convergence. With all the cross platform games out there, I hardly matters anymore if you've got an Xbox, Wii, or PS. They only buy specific consoles for the exclusives, but if there are only one or two of them, it's not worth it.

What gamers what is what these companies will never give them: convergance. The ability to play any game on any platform. games need to become platform neutral. or make a single platform that can be loaded on any OS

I prefer FPS on the PC - using a joystick is just frustrating. But then again I couldn't imagine playing Little Big Planet on a PC. (although the Xbox 360 controller works great for many PC games, and it's nice that Steam is trying a joystick-friendly interface for big-tv-attached-PC-gaming.)

The thing I really hate is that both Xbox 360 and PS3 support USB keyboards and mice. It's completely up to the developers to include that in their game or not. I got a reply once from the makers of Resistance, and the reason they said they didn't include it was because it would make it unfair for multiplayer... well how about Single Player? or have a server setting that would allow/disallow keyboard+mouse?

I like both. I absolutely LOVE Half Life and everything to do with that universe, I'll play it forever I don't even care if they release Half Life 3 (but seriously motherfuckers release the damn game!). That being said, I love Halo too, it's a great series. I don't mind that I have to play it with a joystick, it's just another challenge. I don't play PC games because I like to point and click more than joystick it, I play whatever games are good.

Two of my favorite IBM PC games!!

If you gave EA money for this abortion, you are part of the reason why some publishers (EA, Ubisoft, Activision...) want to treat PC games as $60 rentals, and you are most definitely part of the problem. There are an ABUNDANCE of better, cheaper PC games developed by companies who want your business and won't treat you as just an open wallet. Sim City was a great franchise once, but just like Diablo, Crysis, and anything from Bioware nowadays, it's been consolized, socialized, and/or monetized into crap that most PC gamers want nothing to do with.

This "real cities do not exist in a bubble" is just corporate blathering to justify the always-on DRM, as if fans of the series have forgotten it has always been, first and foremost, a single player game, and a very enjoyable one at that. It is ABSOLUTELY IDIOTIC to force such a drastic change in gameplay/genre into a game that has been so defined by it's gameplay/genre over the years. Same thing when EA remade Syndicate as a FPS. A FPS Syndicate ISN'T SYNDICATE! I don't want to play with anyone else. I don't want my fucking savegames on your shitty server, even if it was an awesome server. If I give you $60 for your game, it's now MY game, and you leave me the fuck alone!

AAARRG! It's like PC game developers are all being run by fucking console kiddies and greedy shitstain corporate types who never played NetQuake or DWANGO, or Heretic, or System Shock, or X-Com, or any of the Black Isle or pre-Dragon Age 2 Bioware stuff, or any Diablo without a "III" behind it, or Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, or the Ultimas, or the Roberta Williams adventure games, or Wing Commander, or Tie Fighter, or MechWarrior. Deus Ex! A full fucking Deus EX play-through would be required before I'd even THINK about hiring your ass to develop a new PC game! On second thought, play it three times, once for each ending!

uuuuugh... so... anyway... yeah, fuck EA.

Ok, fine. Rage.

>> ^00Scud00:

It's a shame that Microsoft decided to stop bringing Halo to the PC after Halo 2, sure, it wasn't the greatest game series ever made but I still would not mind playing it anyhow.


Microsoft bought out Bungi in the first place and turned what would have been an incredible PC game into the shite that became an Xbox exclusive. Fuck Halo and Microsoft.

>> ^00Scud00:

Oh I'm quite sure there's money to be made in PC games, but I guess Microsoft still thinks they can move more Xboxes with Halo as an exclusive, although I suspect that anyone who really wants to play Halo that badly already owns one by now. Or maybe they're just still mad that the same marketing strategy doesn't work as well with operating systems and that the majority of PC users called Microsoft on their bullshit.
>> ^Deano:
>> ^00Scud00:
It's a shame that Microsoft decided to stop bringing Halo to the PC after Halo 2, sure, it wasn't the greatest game series ever made but I still would not mind playing it anyhow.

No money in the PC game for them. You can't charge for map packs, Spartan Ops, skins etc.



I really think it's more about the DLC issue and secondly assuring the Xbox has at least one killer exclusive game.

They will push to sell way more DLC with Halo 4. Spartan Ops will be chargeable once it beds in.
I'm not sure that Microsoft gives a rats arse about PC gaming. They interest lies in owning the living room.

Oh I'm quite sure there's money to be made in PC games, but I guess Microsoft still thinks they can move more Xboxes with Halo as an exclusive, although I suspect that anyone who really wants to play Halo that badly already owns one by now. Or maybe they're just still mad that the same marketing strategy doesn't work as well with operating systems and that the majority of PC users called Microsoft on their bullshit.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^00Scud00:
It's a shame that Microsoft decided to stop bringing Halo to the PC after Halo 2, sure, it wasn't the greatest game series ever made but I still would not mind playing it anyhow.

No money in the PC game for them. You can't charge for map packs, Spartan Ops, skins etc.